1. The above Appeal was taken up by the Division Bench in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 02.10.2014 in terms of Rule 8 of Chapter I of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.

2. We have heard Mr. A.F. Diniz, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents and we have heard Shri M.B.D. Costa, learned Senior Counsel, who sought leave to address the Court.

3. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has pointed out that the Appellant had initiated Inventory Proceedings in the year 2000 to partition the asset of his father namely Alex Francis Xavier Fernandes. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the list of assets was filed by the Cabeca de Casal on 02.01.2001 and objections to such list were filed on 18.01.2002 by the interest parties. Thereafter, the mother of the Appellant expired on 17.06.2004 and the Inventory Proceedings continued also to partition the estate of the said deceased mother and, consequently, an additional list of assets was filed by the Cabeca de Casal on 10.07.2007. Additional objections to the list of assets was filed by the interested parties on 25.01.2008 and thereafter the impugned Order was passed on 22.09.2009. Shri A.F. Diniz, learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously excluded the immoveable property and item nos. 10 to 12 of the list of assets on the ground that the said properties were situated at Mumbai. Learned Counsel further submits that the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 2008 (6) ALL M R 160 in the case of Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira and anr. vs. Jose Paulo Coutinho & Ors., does not lay down the correct position of law, inter alia, as it has misinterpreted Article 24 of the Portuguese Civil Code and proceeded on the wrong footing in equating Mumbai to a foreign territory vis-a-vis Goa, because of the prevailing Portuguese laws forgetting that Goa and Mumbai are part of the same country. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Inventory Court has committed a legal error in holding that the property situated outside Goa cannot form part of the Inventory Proceedings initiation in the State of Goa. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned Inventory Court has failed to apply the provisions of Article 1370 of the Portuguese Civil Code which states that the inheritance comprises of all the properties of the estate leaver. Learned Counsel further submitted that the legitime of the parties cannot be in any way affected by any acts of the parties. Learned Counsel further submits that the disposable quota of the deceased consists of half of all the properties of the estate leaver. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in such circumstances, in case part of the properties belonging to the estate leaver are excluded, grave prejudice would occasion to the legitime which has to be inherited mandatorily by the descendants. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken us through the provisions of Article 1790 to point out how the calculations of the disposable quota is to be effected and pointed out that the learned Single Judge whilst passing the said Judgment has not at all examined this aspect of the case. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in case the properties at Mumbai or located outside Goa are excluded, there would be grave prejudice to the legitime and, consequently, a disparity in the right of inheritance of the descendants. Learned Counsel thereafter has taken us through the Judgment of the learned Single Judge and pointed out that the relevant provisions have not at all been examined by the learned Judge and that the commentaries of Dr. Cunha Gonsalves have been misread by the learned Single Judge whilst coming to the conclusion that the properties located outside Goa have to be excluded. Learned Counsel has pointed out that another Single Judge whilst disposing off th